The Lunch Pail

In a previous post I discussed the business questions that persist around network behavioral targeting, and alluded to the moral debate surrounding the issue. The moral debate on behavioral targeting in Congress resides mostly in the Senate Commerce Committee, is most applicable to network behavioral targeting, and is generally referred to as a debate over privacy. In other words, how much consumer information should business software be allowed to collect, and what type of information can be collected?

Without getting too far into the meat of the political subtext here (which is tough for me because I’m a real political junkie), the two sides of the debate are clear (and introduced here in no particular order).

Side 1, articulated by Jim DeMint, a former marketing research firm founder-turned Republican Senator from South Carolina, states that any new privacy laws governing behavioral targeting amounts to, “a solution looking for a problem.” He supports his argument with the idea that market forces will provide the changes needed to protect consumers’ rights. In sum, he argues that businesses will try to out-do each other with their privacy policies, paving the way for self-regulation.

Side 2 is best captured by committee chair and North Dakota Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan. He sarcastically argues that if market forces could alone regulate society, then the FDA would no longer have to perform inspections. If a company sold spoiled or bad goods they would simply be avoided by consumers, an example of corporate Darwinism. In sum, Dorgan believes self-regulation doesn’t go far enough and is risky for the consumer.

This debate about consumer privacy can be diffused in part simply by communicating better in one essential way. Whether by legal mandate or self-regulation, network-based advertisers can disclose if and how they’re collecting data on consumers. Moreover, disclosing that information to the public, not just to a Senate Committee, is crucial. Increasing communication in this way gives the customer a measure of control and stops some consumer advocacy groups before they can get started.

That’s not to discount the merit of better communication to legislators. Bad information leads to bad policy by lawmakers. Companies that communicate effectively with consumers and legislators can resolve this debate in everyone’s best interest so we can get back to the fun stuff – cutting edge technology that improves the consumer experience.